MOSCOW, May 5 /Prime-TASS/ -- During the course of the entire Iraq saga,
Russia and the United States have found themselves at odds. Both are still
embedded in opposing camps as to how best to deal with the “regime change”
in Baghdad. This has taken the air out of the sails of the “shock and awe”
PR hype out the post-9-11 relationship between the two countries initiated by
President Vladimir Putin with that famous telephone call to his U.S.
counterpart. Since 9-11, Russia and the United States have been doing a lot of
searching for ways to enhance the bilateral relationship — and much more.

Putin and George Bush have some things in common: Both are searching for ways
to change the international order and the order at home. Both are looking in
ways that represent departures from the policy agendas traditionally assumed
within their respective political cultures. Both leaders desire to reinvent
domestic politics and secure a commanding place in our fast-moving world.
However, they are also both finding out that their quests for ways to change
their worlds have their limits and dangers. The attempt to create a “Brave New
World” does not appear to be easy as either would have hoped.

Seeking out and eliminating the sources of terrorism around the world is
clearly a theme that Russia and the United States both riff on. Russia has been
dealing with the problem for much longer than the United States has, and the
former's search for a friend — and powerful ally — to confront this grave
security issue came to an end on 9-11. Since that tragic day, the United States
has tried to pursue the sources of terrorism to the point of radically changing
the international political order.

Russia certainly desires to see the world order changed in order to root out
forces bent on destruction and hate, and its search for a recognition that
international terrorism is a clear and present danger has succeeded beyond its
greatest expectations. Not unlike in the case of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the
awakened giant has proven to be a formable force. Putin’s foreign-policy
alignment with the United States on 9-11 turned out to be much more than he
bargained for, and he is having a difficult time coming to terms with its
consequences. Bush, after all, is having hard time understanding why his friend
from St. Petersburg is making such a fuss about going after the bad guys. After
all, Bush, echoing Putin’s avowal back in 1999, has gone to the outhouse and
beyond to challenge terrorism.

Searching for change both unites and separates Russia and America. The focus
on finding a solution to problems at home and abroad has its limits — and both
Bush and Putin are slowly and painfully starting to realize it.

For Bush, the most glaring problem when it comes to searching for the
solution to his political woes and hopes for changing to world is the inability
to produce Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, something his administration
went to great lengths to use to legitimize the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Obviously, the United States will not “un-invade” Iraq, but explaining why
American armed forces are there will increasing strengthen the claims of those
who opposed the war as well as cast doubt on the legitimacy of new doctrine
called “preventive war.” Bush has long searched for evidence that would
legitimize his actions. He certainly still has a lot of searching to do: After
all, he is still looking for Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein — and a whole
lot of weaponry that was said to be threatening the United States and the world.

Putin’s own quests for a solution to Russia’s international woes are of a
somewhat different nature, but they are still reminiscent of Bush's. Putin came
to power on the back of the popularity of his search for those who committed the
crime of the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings. He came to power with a mandate to
end the conflict in Chechnya by declaring another war to wipe out terrorists —
but is still searching for the people who killed hundreds in Moscow.

His search to make Russia a "normal country" continues faces
daunting problems. Who killed Sergei Yushenkov and the others who have been
victims of political hits? There is little hope, given the precedents, that we
will ever know. The phrase “dictatorship of law” rings very hollow three
years on for other reasons as well: A disgraced governor was not only given a
federal job, but now has been elected to a position with the country's national
security apparatus. Talk about going after corruption sounds as empty as the
"dictatorship" slogan itself. Instead of keeping the oligarchs at
arms' length from the Kremlin, some oligarchs appear to be are at least a little
bit closer to Putin's breast.

Searching for ways to legitimize stumbling domestic and foreign-policy
agendas is a substitute for genuine politics that so smacks little of
convictions based on meaningful visions of the future. Both Bush and Putin
should be advised to stop reacting to events and then trying to spin what
happens to their advantage. This is a dangerous stratagem for both countries.
Shortsighted politics also does not create a solid foundation for a meaningful
bilateral Russian-American relationship. To date, searching for reasons why the
two counties should work together has ended only in acrimony. More interest
should be given attention to what the two countries have in common — one does
not have to look far to find it.